Subject: [babel] What to do about extension drafts?

From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2016 22:33:57 +0200

Hi,

If I read the current consensus correctly:

  - source-specific routing is in scope;
  - exciting metrics are out of scope.

I take this to mean that we don't touch the source-specific extension
draft, and ask for adoption once the WG is formed.  Great.

Now what should I do with

  - draft-jonglez-babel-rtt-extension
  - draft-chroboczek-babel-diversity-routing

?

The former, in particular, is a mature protocol extension that has been
evaluated seriously and deployed in production.  Is the individual
submission process a good way to advance it, or would that be taken as
trying to do something behind the back of the WG?

(The latter should finally get a formal evaluation this summer, Murphy
willing.)

-- Juliusz

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 15:47:52 -0400

Hi Juliusz,

> draft, and ask for adoption once the WG is formed.  Great.

Be prepared for some coordination with RTGWG around the source-dest routing
work.  The question has come out of v6ops with the idea that it should solve
IPv6 multihoming for the small enterprise too.  There are a number of
assumptions
there that still need to be unraveled.

But yes, the source-specific work is in scope for adoption.

> trying to do something behind the back of the WG?

Now that there is almost a WG, I don't see any reason that work shouldn't
be discussed in the WG.  I don't think that you want to take work via the
Independent Stream.  If there is urgency and interest in additional work,
charter revisions do happen and aren't usually (in my experience) that
painful.

The draft-jonglez-babel-rtt-extension seems to fall into the defining at
least one
mandatory metric scheme.

Regards,
Alia

> _______________________________________________
> babel mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel
>

---

From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2016 02:23:44 +0200

> work.

Excellent, I'm looking forward to that.

> least one mandatory metric scheme.

It should perhaps not be mandatory (it's not completely trivial to
implement, since it requires some careful timing), but I'm glad you think
that it might fall under the aegis of the WG.

I'll wait, then.

-- Juliusz

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 20:52:21 -0400

> that it might fall under the aegis of the WG.

Right.  Metrics, at least not too complicated ones, are in scope.  I want
implying that this one would be mandatory.

> I'll wait, then.

Sounds good.  Any freddy's on the revised charter?

---

From: Teco Boot <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 08:53:42 +0200

> 
> Op 4 jun. 2016, om 02:52 heeft Alia Atlas <[email-masked]> het volgende geschreven:
> 
///
>  Any freddy's on the revised charter?

I'm quite happy with the progress being made.

I'm in favor having source specific routing a more than a secondary focus. HOMENET relies on that it is out there. Let's do it right and quick. I prefer it is part of the core protocol and not an extension.

Teco